Re: It ain't the genes that are different, it's the number of copies . . .
In a message dated 11/24/2006 7:31:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I thought Alberto was getting at was how do the maternal and paternal chromosomes fit together? Here's my picture of the problem, where the two parents have different numbers of copies of gene 'B': ...ABBBCDE... (Maternal) ...ABCDE... (Paternal) Won't the A,C,D and E genes pair up, leaving an isolated loop of extra Bs in one of the child's chromosomes? Continuing, I guess the answer is sometimes that's not a big deal, the extra Bs can be tucked safely out of the way. But this might explain why only some genes have multiple copies--sometimes having different copy numbers would be bad. The genome is already messy. The notion that are chromosomes have a neat lineup of genes is incorrect. There are insertions into the middle of genes (introns). Many genes are spread over discontinuous aspects of a single chromosome. Some insertions into the middle of genes destroy function but many do not. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage in the closet
In a message dated 11/10/2006 5:27:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've known lots of cases in which dogs and cats lived together. Sometimes they are the best of friends. Sometimes they just seem to enjoy barking and hissing at each other. Sounds like my marriage ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
In a message dated 10/1/2006 11:14:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, in medicine (as in some other areas) people are suffering and dying during all those years. Particularly when the established theory is stress or IAIYH as it was with ulcers as well as initially with MS and many other diseases later shown to have a physical cause. But there is no other way to do science and medicine. If every good sounding idea were immediately accepted we would be wrong way more often than we would be right. Most established ideas are right, that is why they are established. New idea must prove themselves. Those who doubt and offer objections are just as much a part of the process as those who advocate the new position. There is a scene from Bedazzled (the original Peter Cook and Dudley Moore laugh riot not the lame Brendan Fraser remake). When the devil (Cook) first confronts Moore (a short order cook). Peter Cook (not the cook) announces that he is the devil. Moore responds that Cook is a nut case. Cook responds that they said this about Jesus, Einstein, Newton. Moore responds in turn that they also said it about a lot of nut cases. In fact as we should all be able to agree that said it about way more nutcases than the real thing. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon
In a message dated 10/2/2006 5:45:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chaco Canyon have all shared the feature of being settled in a marginal environment. Is a marginal environment a prerequisite for collapse? Chaco may not have been so marginal at the outset. Chaco probably shared features with the fertile crescent (now basically desert) and Australia (later chapter) in that what was initially a good looking environment which could not restore itself over time. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
In a message dated 9/27/2006 5:44:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which can take years or even decades. Another example from medicine that I am hard put to explain, except to think that no one _wanted_ to believe such a thing was so widespread, is something that I was still taught in the mid '80s: Gonorrhea is a sexually transmitted disease, except that in some cases where children must be sharing bathwater or toweling with infected adult(s), they can become infected. Big changes should take years to be accepted. They must prove themselves against the older established theory. In the process of exploring the new theories many unanticipated facts become known and science moves into anew direction. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 2:46 PM Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?) Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Nick Arnett Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think that you are still missing the point, so let me try it again. Let me start with one example: Gautam's dad. He's a structural engineer. I think it is fair to say that one of the first instincts that a technical person like him or myself when faced with something like this is trying to understand it. In particular, when one's own area of expertise is involved, using that expertise to understand is all but instinctive. snip I have absolutely no experience in structural engineering, so have not comented on this thread, but I'm just going to toss out one medical example of well-educated folk in the field being wrong: _Helicobactor pylori_ infection and relation to peptic ulcer disease. One researcher (from Australia, IIRC) posited and studied this; the vast majority of gastroenterologists disagreed completely -- until it was finally shown to be true. Took years. My personal experience has been that my 'medical gut feelings' are correct better than 90% of the time, even when specialists' opinions do not concur. My gut about this administration is that it spins 'truth' like a top, and is utterly untrustworthy. About the towers, I really don't know; about cabals within our government manufacturing crises: Gulf of Tonkin(g?). But this is a different situation. The discovery that ulcers were caused by helicobactor was a typical breakthough in medicine and science where previously held beliefs are found to be incorrect and an old theory is replaced by a new and better theory (think Einstein and Newton). The point being made in this case is not that there is faulty science but that the facts that exist cannot be explained with the theory that the buildings that were brought down by a the planes. People with both knowledge and experience in such matters see no significant inconsistencies and as far as I can tell those that exist are of the type that are always present in complex real life circumstances. Those arguing against the planes did it theory are not arguing that there are features of structural engineering theory are incorrect thus explaining the conspiracy they are arguing that the structural engineers are incorrect in the standard use of their theories and knowledge. Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Quantum Leakage (was: 9/11 conspiracies)
snip Very cool indeed. Mysteries are what science is all about. Even when the suggestions are as..odd..as the one from m-theory that our universe has no inherent gravity, it gets it via leakage from another universe nearby in m-space, hence why it's so weak... Another version is that gravity is weak because it is on different brane than the other particles and forces This by the way is not string theory per see although it borrows from string theory; Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
In a message dated 9/22/2006 9:39:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That natural selection is *part* of the mechanism is close to certain. But there's way more to speciation - kin selection, sexual selection, allopatric/ synpatric speciation. We're discovering some amazing processes by which differential survival rates are maximised. I think that what Pinker meant was that natural selection explains the presence of useful functions in creatures. All of the other mechanisms exist for sure but to get good and useful doohickeys one needs selection. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:47 PM Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab... On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The similarity is a fact. The progression is a fact. The analysis that therefore all creatures are descended from common ancestors is very close to certain. I'd call fact, because there has been no other explanation that stands up to scrutiny. How it happened this way, that's theory. I note that you introduced data. Yes, on the simplest level data is facts and analysis is theory, but as you say: The relationship between fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not easily seperated. So is it a fact that evolution occurs because of natural selection or is that a theory? After all the data to support natural selection as a mechanism (maybe not the only mechanism but a mechanism) is extremely solid as well. It comes from many disciplines and can be direcltly proven in experiments on organisms with short generetatiion times (bacteria viruses). To me natural selection is a proven mechanism of evolution. Steven Pinker has stated that it is the only explanation for the presence of adaptations in the world. But with 9/11, autism/vaccine crankery, creationism, alternative medicine, perpetual motion and so on, we're seeing groups that either corrupt this relationship and the nature of science, or just ignore or dismiss it entirely. These people ignore data and pre-existent well tested theories. They rely not on facts as a whole but isolated pieces of data and they develop theories that cannot stand the test of experience or time Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:06:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think there are many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected people who turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Not that I arguing that that's the case with 9/11... but I've generally found it more profitable to question authority than to make the kind of assumption that you are arguing. Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions about peer-review in science? What is the assumption? That one must always question authority or that peer review has is based on consensus and not open to new data? It is certainly true that individuals who do peer reviews (like me) are people with expertise who therefore probably believe in the mainstream notions. Too often a novel idea will be rejected because it is well novel but this is not universally true and will not be true for long. When a paper is rejected the author has a choice of dropping the idea curse the stupid bastards who don't understand brilliance when they see it or go back and get more evidence. Even a negative and unfair review and rejection (I have had a few of these) can be of value because in the critique of the paper there are questions that can be addressed. New ideas are tested in the world not in the minds of experts. New evidence is collected, new experiments performed new predictions made and confirmed. The essence of peer review has to do with assessment of evidence. Most reviewers try to be fair even when they don't agree with the results of the paper. It is an imperfect process but it does better than most other ways of deciding things. This argument is very similar to the argument used by Creationists when I start pointing out the tremendous geological evidence against the young-Earth hypothesis. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies or why the Red Sox collapsed
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:43:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I phrased that poorly. He was _always_ an extraordinary, Hall-of-Fame caliber shortstop, because his hitting more than made up for his atrocious fielding. His hitting was never quite as good as people gave it credit for (he was never, ever, in the same league as ARod) but he was always very good. Now he's moved from an excellent shortstop who hits his way into the HOF despite an awful glove to an excellent shortstop who hits his way into the HOF despite a mediocre glove. My point about watching Jeter play every day is that he makes clutch defensive plays just as he makes clutch offensive plays. He does little things well both on offense and defense. I can accept that his range is somewhat limited but to say he has a terrible glove is just not reality. The idea that his arm saves him when his range will not is just not right. The issue is getting a hitter out. It can be argued that great range can overcome an average arm just as easily as it is to argue that a great arm can overcome limited range. I just find it strange that you would say he is a terrible short stop. No one is arguing that A Rod is not a better fielder or that he is not a better power hitter. But Jeter just does not struggle the way A Rod does even when he is a terrible slump (as he did at the beginning of last year). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
In a message dated 9/19/2006 1:05:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory. Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in science. All scientific facts are in theory provisional since scientific facts are by definition falseafiable. Many things are so well established and so imbedded in a net of other well established facts that they are virtually certainly true or at least mostly true (gravity evolution atomic theory) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
In a message dated 9/19/2006 4:45:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact. How it works is a theory. Finally - that's exactly what I was saying about evolution before. Same thing. No disagreement here. I am not sure things are so simple in differentiating fact from theory. The facts of evolution are that there is change over time in the type and nature of living things. This implies that evolution occurs. Is this a fact or a theory. The similarity between organisms in a region and between current and past organisms also implies evolution. Is this data fact or theory? The creationists would argue that this is pattern is just what god wanted to do for whatever reason god does everything god does. Even gravity is a theory. The facts about the way bodies interact with each other can also be explained with the same all purpose explanation used to counteract evolution. God did it that way because god makes all things move the way god wants to make things move. I would argue that what we have are pieces of data and we have theories to explain these pieces of data. Theories can in fact be provisionally true when no data exists that contradicts our theory (or hypothesis). More importantly the notion that facts are neutral and theories no matter how well conceived and documented are judgements about facts is open to conjecture. Scientist do not collect facts and then let the theories fall out,. They develop hypotheses based on some observations and then collect facts or perform experiments to verify or falsify their theories. The relationship between fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not easily seperated. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies or why the Red Sox collapsed
In a message dated 9/18/2006 9:58:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He has, rather remarkably, gone from being a truly atrocious shortstop to one who is basically average (he was significantly better than average last year, I think). OK - maybe you will grant that he has gone from a very good shortstop with somewhat limited range but a great arm to an excellent shortstop who can always make a key play. You really have to watch him every day to appreciate how good he is ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies or why the Red Sox collapsed
Good to here from you. So even though you are clearly wrong about 9/11 (everyone knows that it was a mutant energizer buddy sent by the Bush daughters because they could not count up to 103 and were therefore insulted by the towers) I hope you have some more insight into the collapse of your beloved sox. I think George talked to George who told Manny David that they had to lose. The future of the free world depends on Yankee victory. Seriously who do you like for MVP ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
In a message dated 9/17/2006 3:29:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think a key point in the moral tale is the assumption that the population lived on the island for hundreds of years before the deforestation took place. This fits well with people who are in touch with the land and know how to live wisely. The moral tale then has them fall from grace, and using up resources on trivial things (the statues being the best example). If, however, the problems start with the rats gnawing seeds from the very beginning, as well as human cultivation from the very beginning, a different picture emerges. I did not take Diamond to be saying that religious fanaticism was the sole cause of the collapse. Although I have not read the book in awhile I think he meant to show that the isolated population could not sustain itself for a variety of reasons including lack of accessible fish etc. A civilization may last for centuries before its actions sufficiently degrade the environment. Think of Mesopotamia. When it was the cradle of civilization it was the fertile crescent. Now it is mostly desert (that is it is Iraq). How did this happen? Over time the people living in the region degraded the environment (cut down the trees - always a bad idea). But it took quite a long time. In the Easter Islands it is possible that the civilization that was already in decline when the practice of making the statues began in earnest in response to that decline. This leads to my argument. It is dangerous to make general conclusions from limited data about prehistoric civilizations (prehistoric in the sense that we do not have a history of the civilization to study.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
In a message dated 9/13/2006 7:26:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All we can say for sure is that if a living human being requires some sort of spirit or essence or katra or whatever you call it then at some point prior to a live birth such an entity must enter or become associated with the unborn child. IIRC there are some religions which believe that the baby acquires a spirit or whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath outside the womb. We can say this for sure? How about humans like all other animals are pure meat. What we call the soul and what early people called elan vitale or soul or mind or the little version of me who sits inside my head at a really big control board with switches and buttons (like stomach) and by the way has to have an even smaller version of me inside its head and so forth and so on all the way down to the infinitely small) is just the actions of a human brain experiencing itself. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
In a message dated 9/6/2006 7:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? I am late to this discussion - Have been in Salzburg all week - but the notion that atheist are by definition immoral or that only with religion can there be a reason for living and a reason to be good is simply not true. We are social animals; like all social animals we succeed (produce more offspring or more correctly more grand children) by being successful in our social interaction. We act morally and fairly because this the best way to achieve success. We engage in complex games of tit for tat (you do well by me; I will do well by you; you cheat and I will not interact with you in the future). In order to do this we have developed exquisite tools for detecting cheaters and liars. We have built in tools for deciding what is fair and what is not. There is a huge amount of research (in particular in game theory) that confirms that morality is inborn. We experience fairness as pleasure, lying as pain. All theoretical issues aside - in a practical real world sense the question is are atheists any more likely to be immoral and evil than religious people? I think not. I am a moral person and yet I do not believe in god. I am not a doctrinaire atheist in the sense of thinking religious people are crazy stupid or evil. I just don't believe in god. I can't see how one can reconcile an all powerful entity that is good and yet would allow such pain and suffering in the world . I know the god works in mysterious ways' argument but if we are not allowed to blame god for evil because we cannot know his ways how can we credit him with good? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
In a message dated 9/6/2006 9:32:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? One of trickiest issues for the notion of god is whether god knows there is good or evil. If there is good and evil that god judges then there is something outside of god that constrains god's behavior and therefore god is not the ultimate thing in the universe. If on the other hand god just does what god does than there is no good or evil and there is no basis for morality. (argument curtsey of Spinoza). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
In a message dated 9/3/2006 5:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid hit is far higher than from global warming. Global warming will alter weather conditions around the world. It would probably l upset food production and cause other sorts of economic havoc. The political consequences of this cannot be determined but it is likely that they will be bad for those currently at the top (us). An asteroid hit will be far more devastating but there is no indication that one is imminent. Fix the thing you know is happening before you fix the thing you don't know about ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
In a message dated 8/27/2006 8:32:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, your theory presumes that manking is capable of having an effect upon the climate. Yet, you also seem to assume that whatever intentional effects we have on the conflict will always benign. There is, of course, the risk that in attempting to tinker with a process we hardly understand that we might end up causing even more damage to our welfare. This would be particularly ironic if we were in fact making serious sacrfices in order to effect these changes.Thus, it is not sufficient to simply say because the risks are high, we must take action whatever the cost. These risks must always be balanced against other risks. There certainly is the risk of unknown consequences of our actions but doing nothing will have the predictable consequence of allowing global temperatures to continue to rise As another example, you seem to indicate that we should be sparing no cost in order to combat global warming. Should we not also be sparing no cost to develop an asteroid detection and deterrance system? Or perhaps sparing no cost to research the development of a shield for gamma ray bursts? One should allocate resources based on relative risk and consequence of that risk. Global warming is happening; its consequences are not fully understood but scientists are pretty much totally in agreement that it is occurring as we speak. Another asteroid strike is probably inevitable as well but the best science available does not provide data on when this will occur. We get whacked about every 28 million years and we are about 14 million years since the last hit so we are not exactly overdue. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Write your own headline . . .
In a message dated 8/21/2006 1:24:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You mean you /don't/ want more moist skin, less-noticeable wrinkles around your eyes, or thicker hair? I just don't look good in bikini so the other stuff won't help much ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Write your own headline . . .
In a message dated 8/19/2006 12:44:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seventy percent of people using the product reported larger breasts within two months plus additional benefits that included more moist skin, less noticeable wrinkles around eyes, and thicker hair. The manufacturer claims a 95 percent success rate. I bet the guys who used it were really upset ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich people. Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world and is most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Do you think that they’ll be shouting Jobs, not dry land? In a sense ecology is for the rich; it is up to the rich who use a vastly disproportionate amount of the worlds resources and who have the technologic skill to do something about the environment to do it. This is not charity it is self-preservation for the haves as well as the have nots. A major economic and environmentatl upheaval will create chaos. It will scramble the deck. Those on top are unlikely to be on top afterwards not because they are inherently corrupt but because being on top is luck in the first place and you tend not to get lucky too many times in a row. Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
Jim wrote: I have a bit of a problem with this idea that environmentalism and economics are mortal enemies. There has to be some middle ground. In fact, in the long run, environmentalism makes good business sense. The problem is that so many businesses in this country don't take the long run into account - next week, next month, maybe next year, but five years from now? WTF cares. And yet Diamond has written about oil or gas exploration in his beloved New Guinea (either in Collapse or an Op Ed piece can't remember) about one of the companies being very cognizant of environmental issues (had to do with how they built the roads to and from the mining sites I think amoung other things). He contrasted this to another company with more traditional approach; the environmentally aware company did better - sorry that I can't remember the details. The conclusion was that environmentally sensitive actions were not more expensive. One way use the market to insure environmental protection is to insure that the costs of doing business include the environmental costs (e.g how much will cost to clean up a site after it is mined out). We have a better handle on this now. If the true cots are figured in a corporation will have to make a market driven choice as to how much it is worth to do something to the environment since it will have to pay those costs. Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
In a message dated 8/2/2006 1:31:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Montana's problems are somewhat interesting. We can understand and empathize with them because we face many of the same kinds of problems. In comparison with the disaster that occurred on Easter Island described in Chapter Two: Twilight at Easter, however, the problems our country faces (at least the short term ones) seem like small potatoes. Fascinating! Read on. What struck me was the absence of any easy answers. There are people of good will but they cannot agree. The issue of the long term effects of mining of non-renewable resources is more difficult and profound than I realized. I see no solution other than to hold the companies responsible at least in part. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/26/2006 10:27:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyway, the Biological Species Concept, as with every single other way of defining species, has weaknesses. With this one, it's that it assumes sexual reproduction, so asexual organisms are hard to classify using it. Ultimately, in defining species, biologists use a combination of the various methods, tailored to the situation. Another problem is that members of a species may never have an opportunity to interbreed. A ring species where there are variations in a geographically continuous members who can interbreed with their next door neighbor but not with individuals at the other end of the ring (be it around the world or around a geographic barrier.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/27/2006 7:33:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doesn't this definition fail to account for species that reproduce asexually? Very few plant and animal species reproduce asexually of course. Some reproduce asexually some of the time but very few higher creators completely abstain from sex ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/25/2006 11:08:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point, though, was simply that at that point they would clearly no longer be human they would be something else, by definition. One of the problems with your mode is thinking is the by definition part. This is way we used to think about species before Darwin. They were thought of as having some essential essence unique to them. However we now we define species in a variety of functional ways. The definition I gave (interbreding populations) was developed by Dobninsky and Mahr. (ok I probably spelled these names wrong). Whatever definition one uses species are real but they are natural things with blurry margins not philosophical things (with distinct essences). So the something else that HeLA cells would be would still be human in some ways and maybe not human in others. In some circumstances they would be separate species and in other circumstances they would not be. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Darwin exhibit
Just a note. The Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York is nearing the end of its run. If it comes to a museum near you (or you will be in NY before the end of the summer) I urge all of you to see it. The most amazing part of the exhibit are the transmutational notebooks that Darwin used to record is thinking about evolution written between 1836 to 1838. The actual notebooks where Darwin comes up with evolution by natural selection. The actual notebooks where a theory that changed the world was born. You can see it and you can almost touch it. Notebook B is opened to the page where Darwin draws the tree of life - the connection between all living creatures for the first time. It is right there in front of your eyes. The exhibit also documents Darwin's life - for the great satan he lived the most moral and exemplary life. He was a devoted husband and loving father. A man of incredible personal honesty integrity and modesty - ambitious yes - but honest. See the exhibit if you can ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/26/2006 7:06:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of the _less_ fit. Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least not superficially). And by the way it is not really survival of the fittest in any narrow sense. It is the survival of those individuals whose traits allow them to produce the most offspring who themselves have offspring. Simply producing a lot offspring doesn't help unless one's offspring also reproduce. So the key is how many grandchildren one produces ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/26/2006 8:46:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How can you tell the difference between something that looks like a person and has a soul and something that looks like a person and doesn't? Oh my god the philospher's zombie just showed up. There are millions of words wasted on this concept. A creature that looks and acts like a human being but has no soul or mind. Now since this creature must act like a person it must think it has a soul but really it does not. It has no internal life even though it acts like it does. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/26/2006 10:15:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical twins share a soul? In addition the twining process does not take place at inception so if one has identical twins when was the second soul created? Getting a headache? Here is the simple but painful cure. There is no such thing as the soul or mind as some sort of non-corporeal thing. The soul or mind is the action of the human brain. So to the extent that there are two individual brains there will be two souls. One brain one soul. Since a natural explanation will always allow for odd cases and exceptions in certain circumstances (unlike an essentialist explanation) even multiple personalities may not be a problem. To the extent that a brain can be in a state where it is unaware of other aspects of its consciousness it can have more than one mind or soul. Of course the pain that this view causes is that we cease to have immortal souls or immortal anything. I can live (and die) with that ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/24/2006 11:05:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is an argument that as they are independent and an immortal cell line, that they could be considered an example of a speciation event, but all that means is that we've chosen to call them something for convenience and to distinguish them from other clumps of human cells. They are indeed human cells. Very interesting ones, but indisputably human I would think that by the standard definition of a species a cell line cannot qualify. A species is a group of individuals who can or do interbreed. I don't know how a cell culture can qualify a species. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/25/2006 12:22:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, it's murder to kill a twin... if they've been born. But look at the developmental mess that twinning can result in, and the ethical conundra that result. Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they, but it's not science fiction. It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there. Human chimeras do exist. (one of set of fraternal twins where one of the twin is partially resorbed and incorporated into the other. Sometimes this is results in a syndrome called hypermelanosis of eto. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/23/2006 7:17:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do the cells *really* have human DNA? The wikipedia mentions their extraordinary reproductive properties - don't these properties necessitate some sort of change in the DNA? After all, if you took cells from my Mom's cervix, they wouldn't keep propagating in a laboratory. This possibility that they have non-human-DNA is perhaps particularly instructive if further proof is assembled for the theory that a virus is at the root of many cancers. HeLa cells came from a tumor of Helen Lane. They are unquestionably human cells. They have a mutation that allows them to continue to divide and propagate (that is what cancer cells do after all just not as successfully as these cells. They do not represent a new species of anything. They are clump of human cells that is it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
In a message dated 7/22/2006 2:28:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That link is broken, but I've seen polls that indicate that sort of denial of facts by Republicans. I also have seen it by Democrats. All it indicates to me is that it is not unusual for folks to be in a state of denial. This is the even handed response that is so much bs. You sound like a network newcaster. When the Abramov scandal hit there was all this stuff about democrats getting money as well. But this was crap. Democrats got some money from the tribes before there was abramov and less after. The lobbying scandal is a purely republican thing. The lies about WMD, Sadam, 911, stem cell research are not countered by equal lies by demcrats or liberals. The crap that Bush and company puts out about tax cuts (using the mean instead of the median tax cut for example) are not matched now or in the past by what the democrats did. The number of earmarks has increased several fold since the republicans took over congress; the number was low and rose only slowly under the democrats. So don't pull this they all do this. They all don't; only the party in power has been this corrupt and this cynical. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Collapse...
i read it last year but would be interested in discussion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Collapse... Doug said: Is anyone interested in reading and discussing this Jared Diamond book on list? I volunteer to lead some of the discussion... I read it a couple of months ago and won't have time to read it again in the immediate future, but I'd be happy to take part in any discussion. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Introductions
semi regular - I lurk a lot and come out in bursts when things I know about (very few actually) or I care about are discussed. I am 60 years old (how did that happen). I have two children 22 and 16. My dad died last Friday of Alzheimer's Disease.He had a long decline but was well taken care of. Both I and my sister were at the nursing home when he died. Very peaceful and painless. My dad was a good man. He owned a restaurant and was a caterer. By the end of his life there was nothing really left of him but an amazingly and ironically healthy physical body. But his core was also there.The day he died people who worked at the nursing home came by and kissed him. They told us how nice he was. So part of his core survived as well. As for me: I am a neuroradiologist (imaging of the brain and spine). I am the vice chairman of radiology at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in NYC. I am interested in natural history especially evolution ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Roots of human family tree are shallow
In a message dated 7/3/2006 3:51:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's a mathematical certainty that that person existed, said Steve Olson, whose 2002 book Mapping Human History traces the history of the species since its origins in Africa more than 100,000 years ago. [...] It is also true that the person changes from time to time as lines drop out. The last common ancestor may move forward or back in time ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
In a message dated 6/27/2006 10:02:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The conspiracy theory is, as far as I can tell, that some very powerful folks wanted to scare Americans. They got wind of the AQ plot. They thought that flying planes into the WTC, which would then just burn for a while and probably have to be torn down, wasn't bad enough to institute the Patriot act, or maybe an industrial strength Patriot act. Thus, they placed bombs to go off after the planes hit. In short, while AQ did fly planes in the buildings, the real enemy is a shadowy powerful conservative groupwith ties into the CIA, the White House, etc. Your point is _very_ consistent with my viewsthe above is my take on the internet conspiracy theories we see posted here. Two things - 1) the current administration does not seem capable of such success 2) No matter what I think of the people running our country I do not believe they would commit mass murder. I do not believe if they tried that someone would not have ratted them out and either stopped this before it happened or quickly uncovered the conspiracy afterwards. Some might argue that this administration has already killed thousands of US citizens with their ill conceived war but that is different. Humans engage in all sorts of mental tricks to justify war. We all accept some of these rationalizations in some circumstances (humans have been killing other humans for a long time - from before we were humans). But by and large we do not accept killing members of our own tribe. One can rationalize sending men into war but not killing one's own kind. I think that are too many moral individuals in this government (or any other US government) to allow this to occur ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/28/2006 1:13:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what parts of the brain are used during conversation? I'd be wanting to know that before I drew any conclusions about anything. (Sorry if someone has already covered this, I'm way behind) Language is predominantly controlled by two regions of the brain. Wernicke's area is in the parietal lobe (back half) near the primary auditory cortex (temporal lobes) is the region where language is understood. Broca's area is in the inferior frontal lobe (lateral part of the brain about in the middle). Broca's is more involved with speech generation. This is a simplified view of course. Damage to Wernicke's region leads to receptive aphasia (an inability to understand language - person can still speak but can't understand). Damage to Broca's area (much less common) leads to expressive aphasia - can understand but not speak. Several variants - Fluent aphasia: Can speak but what comes out is word salad; Non-fluent - patient can't speak. Language is localized mostly to the left hemisphere but it can be right sided in rare individuals and it is more or less bilateral in some individuals (women more than men). Of course this is very simplified. The prefrontal portions of the brain are where volition occurs and the medial temporal lobe is the locus for much memory. Damage to any of these areas can also effect speech. Individuals with Alzheimer's Disease develop transcortical aphasia due to severe diffuse brain damage (my dad is currently nearing the end of his life - His AD is so bad that he can neither speak or eat). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/28/2006 5:48:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would earplugs work for you? You can get those at the drugstore year 'round. anything to protect me from cancer. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
In a message dated 6/27/2006 12:31:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How much control do you think that the terrorists had? While the hijacker pilots did have a bit of training, it's hard to imagine that they would be able to do a much better job of hitting the towers with planes. IIRC, Bin Ladin was surprised when the towers actually fell. OK - I know I am dense but if you are going to blow up the building why fly planes into them? Why not fly planes into something else? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the energy of the penetrating em signal and where the penetration occurs. The study does not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the brain; the TMS signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em signal may alter superficial processes such as blood flow. In any event the energy necessary to affect the electrical activity of neurons is very different than the energy necessary to induce cancer. The neurons are always exposed to chemical and em signals - EEGs are recordings of the electrical activity of the brain. These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers (come to think of it there would be no we all in any sense if low level em caused cancer). -Original Message- From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:28:15 -0600 Subject: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13550265/ Cell phone signal excites brain品s it harmful? Repeated exposure could have possible effect on certain people, study finds WASHINGTON - Cell phone emissions excite the part of the brain cortex nearest to the phone, but it is not clear if these effects are harmful, Italian researchers reported Monday. Their study, published in the Annals of Neurology, adds to a growing body of research about mobile phones, their possible effects on the brain, and whether there is any link to cancer. About 730 million cell phones are expected to be sold this year, according to industry estimates, and nearly 2 billion people around the world already use them. Of these, more than 500 million use a type that emits electromagnetic fields known as Global System for Mobile communications or GSM radio phones. Their possible effects on the brain are controversial and not well understood. Dr. Paolo Rossini of Fatebenefratelli hospital in Milan and colleagues used Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation or TMS to check brain function while people used these phones. They had 15 young male volunteers use a GSM 900 cell phone for 45 minutes. In 12 of the 15, the cells in the motor cortex adjacent to the cell phone showed excitability during phone use but returned to normal within an hour. The cortex is the outside layer of the brain and the motor cortex is known as the excitable area because magnetic stimulation has been shown to cause a muscle twitch. Mixed results The researchers stressed that they had not shown that using a cell phone is bad for the brain in any way, but people with conditions such as epilepsy, linked with brain cell excitability, could potentially be affected. It should be argued that long-lasting and repeated exposure to EMFs (electromagnetic frequencies) linked with intense use of cellular phones in daily life might be harmful or beneficial in brain-diseased subjects, they wrote. Further studies are needed to better circumstantiate these conditions and to provide safe rules for the use of this increasingly more widespread device. Medical studies on cell phone use have provided mixed results. Swedish researchers found last year that using cell phones over time can raise the risk of brain tumors. But a study by Japan's _four mobile telephone operators_ found no evidence that radio waves from the phones harmed cells or DNA. The Dutch Health Council analyzed several studies and found no evidence that radiation from mobile phones was harmful. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
-Original Message- From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:10:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone At 01:49 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*. My point was that brain cells are subject to em effects all of the time. They live in a sea of em for their entire existence. If em radiation could cause DNA damage and cancer then these cells could simply not survive and neither could we; in fact we could never have evolved in the first place. Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. Is it anything to worry about? Probably not, but keep phone use short anyway to be on the safe side. But is it more probable that you will die of a cell-phone-induced brain tumor or that you will have a wreck while gabbing on the cell phone while driving (or be run over by some idiot who is gabbing on the cell phone while driving) or that you will die of asphyxiation in a public place due to having your cell phone stuffed down your throat by someone who is sick and tired of the noise? Hang Up And Drive Already Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/26/2006 3:16:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, it's a first order approximationnot a straw man. First, we know that the rate of cancer caused by the EM fields within the brain is, at most, the total rate of brain cancer. I think Zimmy's point is that the exposure of the brain to EM from cell phones is a fraction of the exposure from within the brain itself. Part of this is the absorption in the skull, part of it is the good old fashion inverse square law. Local fields from synapse firing can be seen as strong fields over a very small volume. We know that we can pick up signals from inside the brain through our thick skulls with EEGs. Thus, Yes that is it Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Not ruled out, but a fairly low upper limit has been set. It has to be small enough to not be seen against a relatively low rate of primary brain tumors...7 to 10 per 100k. Further, if you look at penetrating power, these tumors should be relatively shallowwhich results in a further lowering of the backgroundsince only a subset of tumors are shallow...Zimmy can give some numbers on this, I'd bet. Primary brain tumors typically arise from the white matter that is not the superficial part of the brain. Some tumors are superficial; benign tumors - meningiomas arise from the linings of the brain. There is an increased incidence of meningiomas in individuals who have been previously irradiated. For instance in the mid 20th century in Europe lice infestations were treated with radiation (really). So we used to see an unusually high number of meningiomas in old polish immigrants. Otherwise I know of no predilection for brain tumor that is not based on the histologic tumor type. (Certain types of cells are more common in different parts of the brain so it is not surprising that the tumors that arise from these cells are common where the cells reside. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. That's a true statement, but a tad misleading. Proponents of a mechanism need to demonstrate how low levels of RF signals cause cancer, while there is a significant upper limit on higher levels. I remember a similar argument with power lines. My friend, who had worked in RF modeling for over a decade at the time, pointed out that the fields that supposedly cause cancer are significantly smaller than fields that exist at the cellular levels in the body. And, since the energy is non-ionizing, comparison of fields strengths should be valid. Finally, if RF fields cause cancer, shouldn't we see a large increase in cancers caused by the use of NMR machines? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/26/2006 3:45:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level. But the effect is completely different than the effect needed to produce cancer. Remember the brain produces em radiation and responds to it so there is no reason that the brain would not respond to an external source of em. I would propose another test. Yell really loud into someone's ear. This is a sound wave. Measure the electromagnetic response in the brain with an MR scan (actually you don't have to yell all that loud). The fact that sound causes a brain response would mean by this logic that sound can cause cancer. Please get me some earmuffs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/26/2006 5:56:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: EM radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and physical trauma. Go lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll see. It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more worried about skin cancer than I am about brain tumours. Once again the key has to be whether the em radiation from cell phones is powerful enough to cause DNA damage in the brain. My point is that the brain is bathed in em all the time and unless the cell phones produce a different or more powerful type of radiation the brain should have no trouble dealing with this. By the way there is no evidence of increased cancer risks in adults who have undergone CT scan even multiple scans where the radiation exposure is orders of magnitudes greater than that from a cell phone. Even radiation therapy to the brain does not cause a significant increase in additional cancers. Radiation at therapeutic doses is bad. it damages the blood vessels in the brain and leads to chronic ischemia but not to an increase in second primary tumors. By the way the reason that exposure to the sun leads to increase in cancer is not as far as I understand directly due to direct damage to DNA. Rather the sun causes tissue damage and the response to this damage is cellular proliferation. Proliferating cells are much more likely to undergo mutations leading to cancer. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
In a message dated 6/26/2006 10:51:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set off in the floors that they hit. Bingo, and it resides as a suspicion, not a belief. None of the official explanations precludes the sort of conspiracy required. The conspiracy theorists addressed such right from the get-go. Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say has been without doubt eliminated as a possibility. (The point being that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged and/or ignored) So if you are going to blow up the buildings with explosives why fly the planes into the buildings? If you are terrorists why should you care whether the buildings go straight down or topple over. Wouldn't you want them to topple to do more damage? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let your fingers do the computing . . .
Shocking, just shocking. :-) Dan M. And the second time you use it, it'll be revolting. But, the third time you use it, you will get a charge out of it. :-) Dan M. ___ And the 4th time you use it stops working because the grease from the potatoe chips and buffalo chicken wings have destroyed the screen ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Critical Features
In a message dated 5/28/2006 8:27:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (1) virus ( ) alive ( ) not alive. (2) BSE prion ( ) alive ( ) not alive. (Choose one and only one answer to each question.) The problem with this sort of argurement is that it assumes that are essential features that if discovered will allow for accurate catogorization. But essences are human intellectual inventions that however useful in dealing with the world do not reflect the reality of the world. Prior to Darwin biology was an essentalist field. Scientists and the public alike assumed that each species was a unique essential thing that could not be changed into another unique thing; each had its own indvidual creation by god. Darwin changed all that (According to Ernst Mahr this was his crowning intellelectual achievement). So we now know that species are created continously from their forebearers and that there is no specific time when a subspecies may be considered a species. Ring species pose a particular problem to any definition of species. A ring species variers continuously along its geographic distribution with each subspecies able to breed with nearby groups. Howvever where the ends of the rings come into contact (around the world in some cases- around a geographic barrier like a cannon in others) the two groups cannot interbreed. If one is hung up on esssences this is a problem but if one sees the natural non-essential continuim of things this becomes an expected outcome. The same is true for viral particles and prions. They have some features of living systems and lack otherrs. Call them whatever you want. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The List
In a message dated 5/28/2006 8:50:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did you stay for the coda, or did you wimp out with the majority of mindless Marveless minions who walked out when the credits started rolling? Well since I don't remember what I stayed for am not sure. Saw the hint for the future but don't know if that was before or after the credits. So what was it? PS - I really liked this one. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The List
cool ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Elegant science (was Re: Scientific methodology)
-Original Message- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Fri, 12 May 2006 07:16:14 -0700 Subject: Re: Elegant science (was Re: Scientific methodology) On 5/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand the notion that evolution has no emprical evidence is simply untrue. That's hardly the same as saying there is no direct evidence. What I meant, if it wasn't clear, is that nobody was observing evolution over the last few million years. True, though somewhat trivial. (And lest anyone jumping in here takes this out of context, I am *not* arguing against evolution as science.) But we have observed the consequences of evolution. Hypothesis about the mechanisms of evolutions are offered and then data from the field is sought to determine of these hypotheses are correct or not. For instance, since humans were initally lactose intolerant otuside of childhood one can hypothesis that the genetic (or allelle if you prerfer) that allows adults to digest lactose would be more common in those cultures that have a long history of pastoralism. This hypothesis has been tested and found to be true. One can readily observe evolution in real time if one looks at organisms with short generation times. Any time one heres of organisms developing resistance to antibiotics one is taliking about evolution via natural selection. It is ironic that opposition to the notion of evolution runs highest in those who see and deal with its effects on a daily basis. Farmers use pesticides and watch as the pests become resistant and pass this resistance on to their offspring. A per fect example of natural selection in action. As for whether or not there is elegance in the theory of evolution, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My only pointis that elegence in the usual sense that it is used in science means mathematical elegance. Natural selection has none of this. Deep abstract thinkers over the past 150 have been more likely to dismiss natural selection rather than embrace it because it seems too simple or too weak. It is those who work in the field, the paleontolgists taxonomists, environmental scientists and geneticsits who understand the power that natural selection provides as an explanatory and organizing principle for their empiric observations. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Elegant science (was Re: Scientific methodology)
-Original Message- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:29:18 -0700 Subject: Re: Elegant science (was Re: Scientific methodology) On 5/12/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll try again: Direct evidence and observation are not always the same. You seem to be saying that the only direct evidence is actually observing an event. You seem very hung up on this word direct. Is a film of evolution happening, rather than a collection of bodies with time stamps, all you'd accept as direct evidence for the evolution of life on earth? Direct evidence, to me, means directly observing, measuring, etc. It does not mean directly observing the results or aftermath of something. A mechanism other than evolution as we presently understand it could be responsible for the historical evidence that we find in the fossil record. Nanomachines devised by evil overlords, whose purpose is to confuse us, may have assembled the whole thing, to give a silly example. This is like the difference between watching a building burn and looking at a burnt building. The former is direct evidence of a fire, the latter is indirect. But there is even direct evidence of the type you describe for evoluton. One can watch a bacterial culture become resistant to an antibiotic. One can test the genetic makeup of the culture before during and after resistance becomes wide spread watch the gene responsible for resistenc increase in prevelance. One can run computer models that document the power of selection. I'm not hung up on the word. It is the word I meant, but you don't seem to agree on what it means, which is your privilege, but I'm done explaining what I mean by it. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Elegant science (was Re: Scientific methodology)
In a message dated 5/11/2006 10:46:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To expand on that a bit... Science also depends on a notion of elegance. Look at superstring theory, for example. We have no accelerators that come close to producing the sort of energy necessary to demonstrate a basis in reality for it. However, it explains much more than any other theory, which makes it rather elegant. Still, it is good science. Much the same could be said of evolution -- we have very little direct evidence, but i is an elegant explanation of a great deal of what we see. And thus it is subject to the silly just a theory criticism There is a serious difference between string theory and evolution. String theory is mathematically elegent but since there is no experimental data to support it many in the physics community do not consider it science at least not yet. Some of the notions of string theory may be testible with the next generation of super coliders since energies associated with the weak gauge boson will be produced. In the physics community there is far from universal acceptance of string theory. Other ideas (or ideas that contain some elements of string theory) abound. For a review of some of these theories try Lisa Randall,s Warped Passages. On the other hand the notion that evolution has no emprical evidence is simply untrue. At virtually every level from paleontology to field ecology to genetics evolutionary ideas are tested with experiment and observation. The notion that at evolution by natural selection is accepted because it is an elegant theory is simply completely contrary to reality. Many thinkers have rejected it because it seemed to be completely inelegant. It was famoulsy described as the theory of higly pigly. Some have mistakenly thought that the basic notion of differential success of traits in the face of limited resourses is too simple to be important or too weak to explain the world we live in. The true subtley and power of natural selection as a theory has escaped many serious thinkers who have argued that tratis that improve survival survive is an empty tautology (it is not). So evolution has succeeded as theory not because of its elegance (elegant theories are typically elegant mathematically - evolution is is traditionally non-mathematical field - Darwin was bad at math and there is only graph in Origin of the Species - The bush of life) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scientific methodology
In a message dated 5/11/2006 11:45:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think Zimmy was saying that, since the physics indicates that the power from mobile phones is not sufficient to affect the brain, he has a heightened skepticism concerning the report of damage found. yes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Study: Cell-Phone Radiation Affects Brain Function it's Cumulative
My experience with MRIs comes mostly from having my head examined, but I'm pretty sure that the room is a Faraday cage to contain the substantial RF output, so it would be just about impossible to make a cell phone work in there. You'd probably have to build a cell inside the room (or use a simulator, as seen on Myth Busters). At the hospital where I work the MRI is indeed inside metal walls, which had the result that pages were not received on the floor below the MRI room. An MR exam room requires both radiofrequency and magnetic shielding. The RF shielding is to protect the scanner from stray radiofrequency emissions that mess up the MR signal and the magnetic shielding is to protect people (e.g. with pacemakers) and equipment from the effects of the magnetiic fields. The stronger the magnet the greater the demands for magnetic and radiofrequency shielding. most functional MR is now done on relatively high field (3Tesla) scanners. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Study: Cell-Phone Radiation Affects/ Ten Year Anniversary/Nesty birds
-Original Message- From: Jo Anne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:00:54 -0700 Subject: Re: Study: Cell-Phone Radiation Affects/ Ten Year Anniversary/Nesty birds Dr Bob Wrote: I am just very skeptical of all this. The radiation from a cell phone is very weak and it has to penetrate the skin skull (some of us have thicker skulls than others). Does this mean I can tell my daughter that well-known Cornell Radiologist is skeptical that her Bluetooth enabled headset will cause brain damage?? She sometimes listens to her alternative care providers a little too much. Sheesh! She has a bachelors in biology -- you think she'd know how to read the research, eh? Skepticsm is the key. That does not mean that some effects are not possible but with something like this you \ need to look at the physics to understand whether there is enough energy to due harm to cells. I don't think so but if someone can show a way for this to happen then so be it. It is kind of the same with all sorts of paranormal phenomena. The physicist who wrote The Physics of Star Trek (Krauss I think) pointed out that teleportation requires the outlay of energy. Whether you pick up a chair with your hands or your mind you have to use a certain amount of kinetic energy to lift the chair against gravity. This energy is converted into potential energy. If you lifted a chair with your mind you have still created the same potential energy (if you drop the chair it falls and crashes) and therefore since there must be conservation of energy telekinesis must use energy. This should be measurable and there should be brain structures that do the work. I think the same sort of reasoning must make us skeptical of cell phone causing damage. And thanks, Steve, for re-publishing that early stuff. It's nice to read what we used to talk about. Wasn't Stuart in med school? He's probably a specialist in something by now. I was a later joiner, July of '96 I think. My advice for the nesty birds would be to wear protective gear or get your mail at night! You gotta love the tenacity of the little imps, though! Would you attack a giant who got close to your nest? Amities, Jo Anne [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
-Original Message- From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:09:31 + (UTC) Subject: Re: Optimism for the USA ... I'm not really sure what you are trying to get across? The supreme deity as omnipotent? That's been around for a lot longer than 600 years ... Yes, you are right, the notion of omnipotence has been around a very long time. My question is whether it is compatible with generic Western thinking over the past 500 - 600 years? Human laws are restraints on what we humans may do. By the same thinking, natural laws are restraints on what God may do. However, an unrestrained god is not subject to any kind of law. But omnipotence means one can do anything: no restraints. Newtonian (as well as post-Newtonian) science means the discovery of natural laws. A supreme deity that is unrestrained must be able to produce miracles (although it need not do so often in human terms). The question of whether god is free to act in any way is an interesting one and it became critical to Spinoza when he formulated his philosophy. He said that if god is all powerful he can only be himself (or its self). Therefore god cannot act or be any way other than to be him(it) self. If god were to choose between actions then there would have to be something outside of god which would mean that god was not be the ultimate entity. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Study: Cell-Phone Radiation Affects Brain Function it's Cumulative
Q. for Dr. Z. or anyone else who may have the necessary expertise: Is there any way for a subject to use a cell phone while undergoing a cranial MRI? For that matter, is there any type or frequency of EM radiation that a cell phone produces which is more powerful than that which would be experienced by a person undergoing a MRI of his/her brain? If not, how could any effects be definitively attributed to the cell phone radiation? well - your cell phone would immediately be sucked up against the magnet unless you held on tight. I am not sure if it could work at all (mine sure doesn't when I am in the MR suite). If it did work it would probably mess with the MR signal which is after all a radiofrequency signal. Stough said further, as-yet-unpublished, research by his team suggested the impact of mobile phone radiation on the brain was cumulative. People, for instance, who use the mobile phone a lot seem to have more of an impairment than people who are more naive users, he said. Once again cumulative effects have to be looked at carefully since the brain (and any other tissues) will recover from insults. I am just very skeptical of all this. The radiation from a cell phone is very weak and it has to penetrate the skin skull (some of us have thicker skulls than others). Another technology - Magneto-encephalogy (MRC) a sort of suped up localized EEG might be a better way to look at this. As I have (only semi-humorously) mentioned previously, people who yap constantly on any type of phone seem to have some sort of impairment which does not necessarily seem to have anything to do with radiation . . . (Which is why 90+% of the time I let my landline go directly to the answering machine, since experience shows that about 90% of the calls are from telemarketers or similar nuisances, and about 90% of those are pre-recorded or computer-generated messages. As I would tell a live telemarketer if one ever called and I happened to pick up, I don't pay $XX a month for a phone line because I don't get enough unwanted advertising from people trying to get me to send them money from TV, radio, the newspaper, magazines, billboards . . . ) However, he stressed that the impact on brain function was small and the study did not find that mobile phones caused a health problem. We haven't established that there's negative health consequences -- that's a different type of study, he said. We're just showing that the radiation is actually active on the brain. But the impairment is small. The convenience and the way that we communicate now these days outweighs that effect. Perhaps I missed something, but it sounds like what they did was compare people who were talking on an active phone for 30 minutes with people talking on a dummy phone for 30 minutes and concluded that it was the radiation from the active phone which caused a difference. To conclude that it is actually the radiation, istm that they need to conduct an experiment where one group is bombarded by equivalent radiation for 30 minutes while doing something other than trying to carry on a phone conversation (or doing absolutely nothing) versus a control group which does the same thing (or the same nothing) for 30 minutes while not being bombarded by radiation. Or compare people talking on a landline for 30 minutes with people not talking on any kind of phone, as istm that the more likely reason people using a cell phone for 30 minutes show psychological changes is that they get involved in the conversation to the expense of paying attention to whatever is going on around them. -- In Japan, rape is how you say hello. Shouldn't that be herro? (As long as we are being offensive, that is. :P) I am Learn custom from Hentais. --Jack Chick Parody --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
In a message dated 4/25/2006 8:11:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm content to let it remain a mystery. Like many other things, I don't think that whether or not it is literal truth would make any difference in the way I live my life. I often wonder what it is that literalists do differently because they take a version of the creation story literally (I say a version because the Bible has more than one). What difference does it make, really? What does make a difference is that idea, which I embrace, that creation is an ongoing act of God, here, now, in this moment and those to come. ok - but of course it cannot be the literal truth. Do you see god as an active agent or something like Spinoza's god, that is the world is a manifestation of god - all things are - but god is nature and does act as an individual outside of nature ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Optimism for the USA
In a message dated 4/25/2006 9:49:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For what it's worth, I think it is true, in some mysterious way, that the universe was created in six days. But I don't think that it really happened that way what the hell does this mean? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Godel book
Incompleteness Rebecca Goldstein Atlas books 2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
-Original Message- From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: three paradigm shifts? Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy ... That is extemely interesting. For whatever reason, I never thought of it. Well, it's not exactly my original thinking; 'be the leader' is the big theme in current horsemanship training, and has been important in dog training for a while. I'm fairly sure I read it during the past ten years, in books on animal behavior; IIRC, it was articulated at least partially in _Guns, Germs And Steel_ also. Yes defintely in GGS In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. That whole posting helps make sense of the pre-industrial, agricultural world -- it is terrific (and terrifying). With attacks this week by a bear (Tenn., fatal outcome) and a cougar (here, child survived), we are reminded of why our far ancestors were so afraid of and awed by Nature, and the creatures therein. That first alliance with social wolves must have had a tremendous impact on hunter-gatherers: here were allies who could see in the dark, smell from afar, and race to attack, while puny humans had to cower near a fire or risk being carried off by equally 'magic' predators. So too, the reverence for Cow by the ancients: provider of milk, meat, and covering, and able to pull far heavier loads (plow) than humans alone; and to the needs of humans these large creatures *submitted* (more or less quietly). Familiarity breeds contempt -- in myth, the Hound is a near-sacred partner of the Hunter, and the Bull sacrifices his great strength to humanity's survival. Now, 'cur,' 'cow,' 'bitch,' and 'bullshit' are terms of scorn; our foreparents would find our use of them blasphemous. I think one of the reasons some people have gotten on a Native American kick (or DownUnder, an aboriginal kick) is to recapture that sense of wonder at the creatures that, at one time, meant Life or Death. I can see why a God or Goddess would appear as Cow or Wolf or Ram... Debbi Equus Of The Shining Mane! Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Depleted Uranium, Floridated Water, and Bisphenol Food Wrapping
-Original Message- From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Z_Brin brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:42:58 -0500 Subject: Depleted Uranium, Floridated Water, and Bisphenol Food Wrapping http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C8122-1596301%2C00.html Food wrap linked to prostate cancer by Jonathan Leake, Science Editor A CHEMICAL used to make food wrapping and line tin cans could be the cause of surging prostate cancer rates in men, says a study. Bisphenol A is widely used in the food industry to make polycarbonate drinks bottles and the resins used to line tin cans, even though it is known to leach into food and has long been suspected of disrupting human sex hormones. --- http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=133828 Young boys who drink fluoridated tap water are at greater risk for a rare bone cancer, Harvard researchers reported yesterday. The study, published online yesterday in a Harvard-affiliated journal, could intensify debate over fluoridation and mean more scrutiny for Harvard’s Dr. Chester Douglass, accused of fudging the findings to downplay a cancer link. “It’s the best piece of work ever linking fluoride in tap water and bone cancer. It’s pretty damning for (Douglass),” said Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group, which filed a complaint with the National Institutes of Health against Douglass. Douglass, an epidemiology professor at Harvard’s School of Dental Medicine, is paid as editor of the Colgate Oral Care Report, a newsletter supported by the toothpaste maker. What harvard affiliated journal is this? Kind of suspicious when the name of the journal and/or the precise citation is not mentioned. --- http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060307010324data_trunc_sys.shtml Now however, Northern Arizona University biochemist Diane Stearns has established that when cells are exposed to uranium, the uranium binds to DNA and the cells acquire mutations, triggering a whole slew of protein replication errors, some of which can lead to various cancers. Stearns' research, published in the journals Mutagenesis and Molecular Carcinogenesis, confirms what many have suspected for some time - that uranium can damage DNA as a heavy metal, independently of its radioactive properties. -- ...34/-21/13/-8/5/-3/2/-1/1/0/1/1/2/3/5/8/13/21/34... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
Which book was that? Just wondering. Julia I am away from home. I will send you the name next weekend ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
So how do you explain cats? Cats are a perfect example of non-domestication. We have certainly bred them to be smaller and tamer but they are not domesticated in the way that dogs are domesticated. They do not connect with humans in the same way. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Sam Harris Interview
-Original Message- From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:38:27 -0200 Subject: Re: Great Sam Harris Interview The Fool, in a sudden religious zeal, wrote: I believe only in the purity of math. Everything else is nonsense. Seriously? And what do you do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem? Does it effect the underlying math the all physics is based around? I think it does - if the base is not solid, eventually we will come to a problem without a solution. As I understand it the incompleteness theroem does not in any way invalidate physics or the math that is used to study and support it. Goedal was famously misunderstood (at least according to a book I read recently). He did not believe that his work proved that the universe is ultimately unknowable. In fact he was basically a platonist. He firmly believed that there was truth out there. While at Princeton he was close with only one man, Einstein. They shared a belief in the existence of an ultimate truth. Like Goedel, Einstein was in the ironic position of being credited with the notion that everything was relative when in fact his theories despite their unfortunate names proved (or he hoped they proved) the exact opposite. Einstein of course abhored quantum physics because of it inherent probablistic nature. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Another study show cell-phone tumor link
Acoustic neuromas are slow-growing noncancerous tumors that develop on a nerve linking the brain and the inner ear. Technically these tumors are more accurately called vestibular schwannomas (They arise from the vestibular branch (balance controlling) rather than the cochlear (hearing contolling - thus acoustic) branch of the 8th cranial nerve and the cells are scwhann cells not neural cells). They are benign neoplasms (not sure where the popularly stated notion that benign tumors are not cancers comes from but this is not really a good distinction since the border between benign and malignant tumors of many types is not sharp). We looked at DNA damage in animals, not in humans, and found that cell phone radiation can damage DNA, he said. The body's immune system has the ability to repair DNA breaks, but sometimes it can make a mistake and cause a mutation, which could be the first step toward cancer, Lai said. In instances like this dose is all important. How much radiation over how long a period of time? What size are the animals? (Radiation may penetrate to the vestibular nerves more easily in a small animal than a human). The fact of the matter is that I have been doing neuroradiology for about 30 years and I have seen no rise in the incidence of vestibular scwhannomas in my practice and none of my colleagues has commented to me that they have seen any increased incidence. I will hold an informal poll at the next national neuroradiology meeting in May and get back to you all but for the moment I remain very skeptical ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Another study show cell-phone tumor link
Q. for Dr. Z: Is an acoustic neuroma considered a type of brain tumor? (Based on what I have read on the subject, ISTM the answer is No, but then IANAMD, nor do I play one on TV . . . ) It is not a tumor of the brain but rather a tumor arising from cells (schwann cells) that cover nerves leaving the brain. Most but not all are benign. Generically we lump all of these together and central nervous system tumors but they do not arise from the cells that typically cause tumors in the brain itself. Brain tumor most often arise from support cells in the brain (astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, ependymocytes) and lest commonly from neurons (Ganglioglioma, Central Neurocytoma, Primitive neuroectodermal tumors). Nerves cells rarely divide after developement and therefore are not subject to harmful mutations. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Another study show cell-phone tumor link
In a message dated 4/2/2006 8:40:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alternative hypothesis explaining the correlation between brain tumors and cell phone use which afaik the study has not ruled out: it is the behavioral effects of a pre-existing brain tumor which causes certain people to drive everywhere and walk everywhere with a cell phone stuck in their ear because they apparently believe someone is interested in hearing them talk constantly and give a running commentary on their lives . . . So everyone in New York has a brain tumor? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Another study show cell-phone tumor link
In a message dated 4/3/2006 4:54:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From my experience, I recommend a nice Mixed Oligo-Astrocytoma of the frontal lobe over, for example, Anaplastic Ependymoma. The former, in my experience, is a happy little indolent tumor that is easily removed and treated with just about the gentlest chemotherapy that can be had. The latter, in my experience is a rotten, murdering bastard that is evil and should be eradicated The word anaplastic is always bad. By far the best brain tumor to have is Juvenile Pilocytic Astrocytoma of the cerebellum. Totally benign completely resectable. If you are going to have an oligo it is betterf to be a pure oligo but the right anterior ftontal lobe is a good place because a wide resection is possible. On balance however the best is no tumor at all. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Another study show cell-phone tumor link
In a message dated 3/31/2006 6:28:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A total 85 of these 905 cases were so-called high users of mobile phones, that is they began early to use mobile and, or wireless telephones and used them a lot, the study said. The study also shows that the rise in risk is noticeable for tumors on the side of the head where the phone was said to be used, it added. Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones, for instance of who make mobile phone calls for 2,000 hours or more in their life, had a 240 percent increased risk for a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used. The relationship between location of tumor and side of phone use would have to be more than noticable. It should be incredibly strong. For instance radiation therapy can induce brain tumors but it occurs in the radiiation field and at the site where the radiation enters the skull. The inverse square rule would have to hold. In addition there has to be a mechanism by which the radiation causes mutations. I no of no evidence that the energy associated with cell phone use can cause cellular damage in particular since it must first penetrate the skin and skull. I think this is like the famous power line causing cancer myth. While there certainly can be unknown effects these effects cannot be mystical. If brain tumors are more frequent then there must be energy that can cause mutations. This energy must get to the brain cells in the way that all energy does; that is it must obey the rules of physics. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Olympos...
In a message dated 3/11/2006 2:05:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: anyone else read it yet? Yes - I enjoyed it. Cool world; good ending. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hello (hello, hello)
In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:05:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'll go ahead and ask you now. What do you think about minicolumns? I think I don't know anything about minicolumns unless you are talking about really about gossip sites that deal only with vertically challenged celebrities ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hello (hello, hello)
In a message dated 3/6/2006 6:05:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: go ahead and ask you now. What do you think about minicolumns? I read something about them that cited http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/bhj134?ijkey=WZG8KUzGqERqQub; keytype=ref http://tinyurl.com/pdxv3 if that link broke and in the comments of the thing I read someone indicated that it's a controversial theory. I figure you know a lot more about brain structure than I do, so you'd be a reasonable person to ask. wow! I am impresed that you got to such a hard core science paper. The notion that the cortex develops in columns is not as far as I know controversial. The germinal matrix is the embryologic structure where neuronal precursors are produced. These migrate to the surface of the brain along a scapholding made up of other cells called radial astrocytes. The two major cell types in the brain are neurons (the nerve cells that carry out the computational functions (that is, the important stuff) and glial cells that provide other functions to the brain in terms of maintaining the necessary chemical environment, forming the linings of the brain, providing nurishment to the white matter, acting as the immune cells of the brain etc. Astrocytes are the most common of these glial cells. In the developing brain beginning in the second trimester. These glial cells migrate away from the central cavities of the brain. The neurons then grow out along the radial glial cells to reach their appropriate position. If this process is disrupted or disorganized abnormalities of cortical formation occur. When this process is focal clefts are produced in the brain extending from the central cavities (the ventricles) to the surface of the brain. These clefts are called schizencephaly. If the radial glial cells fail to migrate at all or if the neurons migrate incorrectly. The cortex will be thickened disorganized. The brain will not form normal gyri (the folds of the brain). The extreme example of this is lisencephaly, litterly a smooth ungyrated brain. Not a good thing. Not sure if this is what you wanted me to talk about. In what context did this come up? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hello (hello, hello)
-Original Message- From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:35:27 -0600 Subject: Re: Hello (hello, hello) (Yawn) I was just napping, really. Might go back to in, in fact. Zzzz (Speaking of Z, there's something I've been meaning to post for a couple of days asking Bob Z. about something. Maybe I'll get to that later this evening when the kids are in bed.) That is my effect on people. Even thinking about me puts most everybody to sleep. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To my loyal fans
In a message dated 2/20/2006 7:05:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just watched the tape. Really cool stuff. And now I have a face to put with the e-mail voice . . Well actually I told Gibson it was the coolest shit. . I was scanning the Fri am newsfotainment programs (being iced in with record cold in Denver), and saw that CG was getting a new type of brain scan...I was delighted to see a Brineller on the screen! Wow, what spectacular imagery. Go Bob! Yes I am spectacular - oh you mean the scans - yeah they are really neat. Of course things are more complex than we showed on TV. Lots of work to be done before we go from pretty pictures to real science. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To my loyal fans
In a message dated 2/21/2006 9:21:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I didn't get to see you on the tv, but did find the scan pic/article on ABC and it is way cool. Being buried back in school for a clinical doctorate, I can really see how exciting this is. During a unit last fall on brain injury, it seemed amazing to me that we generally can't tell the extent of brain injury (except at a gross level) in basic scans immediately post incident. My strengths have never been in neuro, but being able to see where problems may occur and the tracking the effects of meds to prevent/minimize damage (especially considering the meds being discussed to possibly stop the secondary tissue loss) actually gives me a glimmer of the excitement/possibility of working in that area. Since I am pretty much living with PubMed I looked up what you guys have been doing and I am amazed at all the research already done. It is an exploding area of research. We have two papers coming out this year on chronic injury in boxers. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To my loyal fans
In a message dated 2/17/2006 10:24:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just watched the tape. Really cool stuff. And now I have a face to put with the e-mail voice . . . Thanks - but didn't you know what Charlie Gibson before? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To my loyal fans
In a message dated 2/17/2006 11:03:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you familiar with the brain imaging done by Dr. Daniel Amen on ADD/ADHD? There seem to be varying opinions about its meaningfulness... but your images certainly reminded me of what he shows. Don't know Amen. I work with one of the world experts on ADD/ADHD BJ Casey (short for Betty Joe from the hills of North Carolina). She has been using DTI in combination with fMRI to study people with ADD. One of the most interesting things about her research is that there is modification of brain activation and aspects of DTI with both drugs and retraining ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
To my loyal fans
I am going to be on Good Morning America tomorrow (around 7:40 am est they tell me) talking about a nre brain imaging technique called Diffusion Tensor Imaging - just about the coolest thing to come down the pike in neuroimaging in the last few years (neater in my opinion than fMRI). Of course if Cheney shoots someone else who knows maybe they will bump me and of course I have no idea how they will present the material (Charlie Gibson interviewed me for around 40 minutes and the piece will run about 5 minutes). Gibson by the way is very impressive. Put me at ease and grasped the concept of the test quite well. Now of course they could butcher it but I hope not. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperion
In a message dated 2/14/2006 12:06:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I found interesting about the first two books was not the SF portions of it nearly as much as the *human* portions. The stories of the pilgrims were all gripping, and that's what I liked about Hyperion more than the future conflicts and all. It was the people in the books, not the events surrounding them, that really spoke to me. In fact, to some extent Simmons' insistent EYKIW's (everything you know is wrong) in Endymion irked me, and I felt cheapened the first two a little bit. I still liked them, but for different reasons and certainly not as much as the Cantos. I agree. I thought the first two books were about the people. The story of Rachel was unbelievably touching and sad. At the end of Fall I thought that Simmons had wrapped everything up wonderfully. I felt that in the Endemyon books he had jumped the shark (or to be more accurate the Shrike). I enjoyed these books but they were totally different in tone and style. Much more good but not unique sf. At first I was angry but then I realized that one has to be realistic. Simmons is a professional writer. He had created a universe and characters that were of value so why not use them? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Having children 'is bad for your mental health'
In a message dated 1/17/2006 9:37:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You must have been spared the cliche of your parents starting to ask on your wedding day how soon they could expect to become grandparents. Au contrarie mon ami. I was not all spared this event. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Having children 'is bad for your mental health'
In a message dated 1/16/2006 4:56:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somewhere I've heard that the biological drive to procreate can only be completely satisfied by grandchildren. :-) I have quite a few years to wait before first-hand experience. There a sense in which this is true. The biologic imperative is to pass along ones genes. Creating offspring is only part of the job. What really counts is how many copies of your genes make into the subsequent generation. So you could have 20 kids but if none procreate you would end up not passing your genes along. There are lots of strategies avalialbe. One can produce a huge number of offspring and just hope some of them make it to the next generation. You put all of your energy into making offsping and none into raising them. The ultimate example is some aphids who are born pregnant. Makes sense for creatures who are small short lived and dependentt upon waxing and waning conditions to reproduce. Basically make hay while the sun shinges. On the other extreme there are organisms who have few offspring but invest huge amounts time and energy in raising those offsrping. These offsprings are large long lived and capable learning and complex behavior. Sound familiar? Basically putting all of your eggs in one basker. By the way this a trait of all great apes more or less. But it is probably not a great one until one peculiar primate with a new trick came along. Up until then primates had been dwindling for about 20 million years losing out to monkeys which were becoming more numerous. Having said this I don't think there is any drive to create grfandchildren. That is too abstract a concept to be built into an organism including us. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
-Original Message- From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:57:24 -0200 Subject: Re: meta research Robert J. Chassell wrote: But that was not the question. The question was more basic. There were two hypotheses: 1. the universe did not begin 2. the universe began (...) Please tell me of other hypotheses besides `no-beginning' and `a beginning'. 3. Many beginnings 4. Some parts began, other parts didn´t. 5. ´Begin´ does not make sense when we talk about the universe If there is people now, and if there was a time when there were no people, how does it happen that there is people now? -- Bernardo when 5 years old evolution Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brave New Genetic Frontiers
-Original Message- From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:33:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Brave New Genetic Frontiers On Sep 25, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Leonard Matusik wrote: How about this question... How probable would it be to artificially INDUCE a small population of blind cave fish to start growing eyes again without breeding it back to the parent Mexican Tetra line? Could it be done in less than 100 generations? You read the Wikipedia article: it described an experiment in which the lens from a sighted Astyanax mexicanus was implanted into the blind cave form of the fish, and the fish developed a complete eye. That's not saying, of course, that the blind fish regained vision, and it certainly does not imply that its offspring would be sighted, but it suggests that the genetic information for building eyes is quite present. This would make sense. It would be unlikely that an entire suite of genes would mutate but rather some tool box gene mutated. Maybe loss of site in this case is more than simply the result of genetic drift. Maybe being sightless affords these fish some selective advantage. As has been pointed out at the very least they do not have to build an expensive and adapatively useless organ. But maybe on a structural or biochemical level the loss of sigth may have been accompanied by some other enhancment. Not sure if this just confuses the topic, but that is, after all, my speciality. Dave The Country of the Blind Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: or ....Something REALLY different / was: Brave New Genetic Frontiers
The secret ingredient appears to have been sex. Asexual reproduction, in addition to being rather boring, doesn't introduce anywhere near the possibility for diversification of a genome like sex does. So somewhere around 700 to 1000 million years ago, life discovered this new way to do things, and that seems to have been the real turning point. Others have suggested additional reasons for early stability and later explosion 1) Oxygen content of the atmosphere. Complex life could not arrise until there was sufficient oxygen to make complex life feasible. 2) There may have been complex life before the Cambrian but it lacked hard body parts that could fossilize. Hard parts evolved when life got nasty (predation) 3) There needed to a major disruption of the status quo before new forms could gain a foot hold Enter snow ball earth about 600 million years ago. By the way sex does not introduce diversification it facilitates it. Without sex, life would be limited to about 6000 genes. Sex is an error correction tool. Think of the game of telephone where a message passed from individual to individual is degraded to the point where it no longer is intelligable. (In modern lingo - its information is lost). Same holds true for organisms. After repeated copying the genetic message is lost and organism cannot reproduce. Basic rule is that an individual must produce at least one good copy of itself if its lineage is to survive. But as you increase the number of genes the number of errors increase. So the upper limit of genetic complexity is determined by how good your error correction tools are. DNA surplanted RNA because it was better at correcting errors. Other tools like reverse transcriptase allow for correction of DNA errors. Sex achieves its error correction by randomly dispersing genes to multiple descendents. The number of mutations does not decrease but some offspring get stuck with lots of bad genes (and die) and others get only good copies. By the way this stuff comes from Mark Ridley's book The Cooperative Gene and Matt Ridley's (no relationship) The Red Queen. When you understand that the number of genes is limited in this matter it does not come as a shock that humans have only 30,000 genes. To have more we would have had to invented a whole new way of correcting errors. Mark Ridley published The Cooperative Gene (US title - it was called something else in England) before the genome was decoded and he was very skeptical that we would have the 100,000 + genes that had been generally predicted for humans. Just another example of human hubris. But life's apparent diversity today is still not the whole picture; proximally 95% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Some of that is due to mass die-offs, but a lot of it is also do, simply, to evolution. Eventually, in two populations isolated by geography (for instance), one group of organisms simply cannot interbreed with the other, and so you get a new species. Ring species are one rather interesting example of this. If you go one way you have populations that can interbreed; but if you go the other way, you have a disconnection: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html And if ? when ? one of the populations fails to survive, perhaps a harsh winter or similar local catastrophe, you can argue that the species is extinct, but there's still continuity there in the surviving and altered branch. Hence finding that the majority of species which used to be here are gone isn't really that surprising, though some interpret it as a warning rather than recognizing it as simple change. After all, Pangaea is no longer on the maps either, yet no one mourns its passing. Homo sapiens as we know it today is doomed, like 90%+ of all other terrestrial species, to extinction. h, perhaps... Or maybe HomoSapients-Universalis will be able to interbreed with all species. I've allways wondered about that Polyploid Honey from The Fifth Element... What do you think she's got hiding in those genes? Everything. IIRC the doctor in that movie claimed that *all* her genes were active, not 97% or so deactivated like the junk DNA humans have. That's a cute but impossible idea, since you really wouldn't want most of that stuff switched on. It might code for scales and gills, for instance, fins instead of fingers, etc. Junk DNA is why the loss of information argument from ID-iots is specious. The information to, say, grow eyes ? or segmented abdomens ? is not lost. It's still there; it's just switched off, but it can be switched on again any time. It seems that once DNA learns how to do something it doesn't forget; it simply stops doing it in favor of some other variation that, for whatever reason, is more optimized to fit a given environment. Finally, it's easy to overlook the quiet mutations that don't have any apparent effect at all on an organism's
Re: or ....Something REALLY different / was: Brave New Genetic Frontiers
-Original Message- From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:29:17 +0100 Subject: Re: or Something REALLY different / was: Brave New Genetic Frontiers Warren said: ALL trilobites were killed off in the Cambrian extinction, about 500 MY ago. This is not true. As Leonard said, the trilobites were wiped out by the end-Permian mass extinction. An excellent account of the evolutionary history of trilobites can be found in Richard Fortey's book _Trilobite!_, which I reviewed a few years ago: An excellent book as are his other general science books Life and Earth http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/73.html Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brave New Genetic Frontiers
In a message dated 9/25/2005 4:58:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Only selection determines that those with high net reproduction rates each generation reproduce so that what was improbable becomes probable. It seems to me that a good way to think about this is How many grandchildren are produced which allows for not only the number of offspring are produced but also the reproductive success of the children. After all it does no good to produce lots of offspring if they are all killed before they can reprodcue ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brave New Genetic Frontiers
In a message dated 9/24/2005 8:03:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How can blind cave fish could result purely from random mutations (among several sub species no less)? I believe that several billion tetras must have been sucked into Mexican caves in order for random mutations to account for this. It does not happen with a single random mutation but in fish living in caves with no need for eyes genetic drift will ocur and without the selection pressure that favors those with vision there will be a loss of vision. There may also have been some advantage to the sightless (or poorly sighted individuals) that gave some advantages over the sighted fish. In general ,your incredulity about the power of mutattion to account for adaptation is an old one that has been addressed many times and in many studies. Mutation does not drive selection. Organisms do not sit around waiting for some hopeful monster to arrise. Rather natural variation in the gene pool of a species including mutations are acted upon by selection. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brave New Genetic Frontiers
Sorry if I seem so contentious on the point but I repeat, the vehement reliance of natural selection as a mechanism for macro-Evolution has stiffled the quest for truth in this arena for a century (and still does!) This the standard arguement against natural selectioin. It is used because natural selection has in fact passed every expermental and observational test to which it has been subjected. Most of the arguements about macroselection revolve around things like macromutation (hopeful monsters) developemental biology and of course Intelligent Design. The most reasonable of these has to do with the work on evo devo but even here this work simply supplies natrual selection with tools it needs to do its work. It is not that other processes are key players it just that selection is the only mechanism that explains the presence evolution and preservation of adaptation in the biological world. People have always have had trouble accepting selection as the key player in our history. It seems so simple. Many have considered it a tautology (organisms that survive better survive better) almost empty of content but this fails to see it as a motive force. Darwin's initial formulation still work s and all advances in biology have simply enforced the role of selection. I think the main reason that selection is so unpopular is that it affronts our inflated sense of our own wonderfulness. Hubris pure and simple. In the end macroevolution is simply evolution occurring over long periods of time. Trends in evolution reflect the ability of biotic life to probe the environment to discover new and better ways to make a living. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brave New Genetic Frontiers
In a message dated 9/10/2005 7:13:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, do we influence our own evolution in the same fashion? Yes. YES. Yes! And no. Both; all four. Unfortunately the most likely effect of our environmental impact will be our own extinction, ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gas Prices
In a message dated 9/2/2005 10:49:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But, if there is a shortage, and prices are kept constant, what, besides rationing or gas lines, would reduce demand to the level of supply? This isn't a rhetorical question, I can't think of another mechanism that would work quickly and efficiently. I see your point but their might need to be some response. Set up carl pools; add bus lines; some support ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brave New Genetic Frontiers
In a message dated 9/1/2005 11:03:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PS: with all the reproductive isolation we've foisted upon dogs (not to mention rats!) Why haven't we created any new species? We have. Dogs _are_ an artificial creation of Humanity They are a consequence of humans not a creation of humans. Dogs have evolved to take advantage of certain aspects of human psychology. They have retained juvenile features (neotony) such as floppy ears round faces and large eyes because humans (and many social creatures) are hard wired to respond favorably to juvenile features.But this was not the consequence of conscious human decisions. Grain crops such as wheat also evolved in response to human preferences. In this way we are not any different from other biologic and ecologic agents that alter the environment and create new opportunities for evolution. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gas Prices
In a message dated 9/2/2005 5:50:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Price controls are almost always a bad idea. They've always been a bad idea. They're the idea of people who think that they are somehow morally exempt from the laws of supply and demand, a position that makes about as much sense as claiming you're morally exempt from the law of gravity. You might _want_ to be, but I still advise a parachute next time you jump out of an airplane. In this case, if we were to not raise the price of gasoline when the quantity of gasoline available has shrunk, the outcome would be immediately predictable. Shortages. Gas lines. You raise the price of something if you want people to use it more efficiently. We now have less gasoline. You want people to use it more efficiently? The price has to go up. It can go up in the dollar price. Or it can go up by making people wait in line. We tried that in the 1970s, it wasn't really a successful policy. Unless you're a member of the left, I guess, which seems to believe that the entire world should be run like the DMV. But there has to be some way to deal with emergencies such as this. It is not a matter of simply don't drive. Some (many) people need to drive to get to work. Would not the economy suffer if people can't afford even essential gas consumption. Isn't there some limited (in time or amount) of relief that can be given that will bend but not break the market. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/22/2005 11:59:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, the issue I have with your contentions (to the extent they refer to me) is that you seem to be suggesting I have insensitivity to subtle bigotries as suffered by a particular group, which (to me) translates to a suggestion that I'm insensitive to bigotry and oppression in general. I don't believe that's the case. I'd have to be a member of an unoppressed majority for that to be a feasible charge, at least to my mind, and as I've stated, I am not such a fortunate person. I am not suggesting generral insensitivity since I do not know your opinon on other issues but only to anti-semitic remarks. By the way being oppressed does not immunize one against prejudice. You would think that Jews and blacks would understand each other and be tolerant of each other but while this may be true in general there are of course many racists jews and anti-semitic blacks. And in this instance, again what we're talking about is a judgment call. I can be so sure of that because there is simply no objective evidence to support *anyone's* claims here. That strongly suggests we're dealing in the realm of opinion alone. I have tried to point out that there is in fact a structure to certain anti-semitic remarks that are historically verifiable. I don't believe it requires judgement to say some remarks are anti-semitic. This does not mean that the person making the remarks is explcitly anti-semitic and if pointing out the nature of a statement is anti-semitic makes a person reconsider it then there would be good evidence that the person did not understand the implications of their remarks. If there were objective reality to the claim that the neo-con movement was originally comprised largely or exclusively of Jewish people, then a case *could be* made that the label, used in certain situations, would be evidence of an ism. But there'd have to be a few things in place for this to be a valid charge, in my estimation: 1. Neo-cons would have to be indisputably Jewish, either initially or now; 2. The label would have to be applied in a way that hinted at a broader Jewish conspiracy; 3. The label would have to be applied by someone who might reasonably be charged with an ism. Problem is that point (1) seems to be in dispute. Point (2) is not verifiably attached to Sheehan. And point (3) requires a knowledge of a person's motivations that can only come with rigorous checking of background, declarations of position made historically, and so on. The point is not whether neo-cons are all jewish it is that anti-semites identify them as jews and use the term neocon as a suragate for jew. 2) Such hints are out there. 3) Pat Bucchanan comes to mind. Were the source of the allegations someone like Pat Robertson -- who's absolutely a bigot -- then I would have little doubt that the intent was to do harm to Jewish people. But Sheehan doesn't have a public record of making bigoted statements, so it's harder to convince me that she had harmful intentions in the things she might or might not have said. Whether she has harmful intentions or not the issue is whether her remarks however naive or uninformed are anti-semitic; I (and others on the list) contend they are and have pointed out the specific ways in which they are anti-semitic. So would you concede that it's your background in Judaic culture which helps you be more sensitive to oppression in other groups? And would you further concede the *possibility* that someone in a different oppressed group might be just as sensitive to Jewish plight? Finally, would you consider it plausible that what we're actually having here is a difference of *judgment* in an issue which, like a strike zone, is vaguely defined at the edges, and which therefore disallows the probability of an objective decision being made? I would of course concede that Cindy insensitive to the plight of jews. That is the crux of the issue. Her insenstivity to issues of antisemitism becomes antisemitism when she makes remarks that are anti-semitic. There is no judgement about whether the remarks are anti-semitic in my opinion. Nick says she is not explicitly anti-semitic and I accept that but she clearly blames what neocons for our tilt (in her opinion) towards Israel and once again I cannot stress enough that this line of reasoning is used by explicit anti-semites -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/20/2005 9:30:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, it's not... quantum mechanics is a reasonable, scientific theory. The Jews-run-the-world idea is a paranoid goofball conspiracy theory. That makes all the difference. I believe the latter is untrue because, despite a good education, I hardly know anything about it *and* it is ridiculous. My point was that the main rebuttal to the assertions in my often overheated posts was a simple assertion that they were not true because the poster did not believe ithen t to be true. My point was that since my arguements are based on history not so much on current events (yet) that to argue from current experience in particular here in the US is not valid just as it not valid to argue against quantum physicis because one does not experience it in real life without reading about it. In other words, I'm prejudiced *against* such conspiracy theories. I choose to believe that reasonable people who blame neo-cons and Israel for trouble are not doing so in support of such theories. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
